SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
v.
CALIFORNIA ADJUSTMENT COMPANY
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
CALIFORNIA ADJUSTMENT COMPANY
248 U.S. 595
Supreme Court of the United States (1919)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1971)…t commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business. See, e. g., Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd., 185 F. 2d 196, 208 (CA9 1950); Bluefields S. S. Co. v. United Fruit Co., 243 F. 1, 20 (CA3 1917), appeal dismissed, 248 U. S. 595 (1919); 2361 State Corp. v. Sealy, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 845, 850 (ND Ill. 1967). This much is plain from the treble-damage statute itself. 15 U. S. C. § 15. In the context of a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws, such as the conspira…
-
The Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 517 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1975)…t commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business. See, e. g., Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc., v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd., 185 F. 2d 196, 208 (CA 9 1950); Bluefields S.S. Co. v. United Fruit Co., 243 F. 1, 20 (CA 3 1917) appeal dismissed, 248 U.S. 595, 39 S.Ct. 136, 63 L.Ed. 438 (1919); 2361 State Corp. v. Sealy, Inc., 263 F.Supp. 845, 850 (N.D.Ill.1967). This much is plain from the treble-damage statute itself. 15 U.S.C. § 15.19 Zenith, supra, 401 U.S. at 338, 91 S.Ct. at 806, 28 L.Ed.2d at 92.…
-
Burnham Chem. Co. v. Borax Consolidated, 170 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1948)…City of Atlanta, supra; Campbell v. City of Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610, 616, 15 S.Ct. 217, 39 L.Ed. 280; Foster & Kleiser v. Special Site Sign Co., supra; Bluefields S. S. Company v. United Fruit Company, 3 Cir., 1917, 243 F. 1, writ of error dismissed 248 U.S. 595, 39 S.Ct. 136, 63 L.Ed. 438; Ben C. Jones & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 1921, 270 F. 563, writ of error dismissed 270 U.S. 665, 46 S.Ct. 208, 70 L.Ed. 789; State of Oklahoma v. American Book Co., supra; Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, sup…